Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the job status lifecycle and the expected polling behavior. It goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the statuses and the post-poll step, which is useful for the agent's decision-making.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second gives essential workflow guidance and API path. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, statuses, and polling workflow adequately. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response payload shape, but the instruction to fetch the transcript separately implies the job details are separate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter job_id, with the schema already stating 'The job id returned by speechmatics_transcribe_url.' The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get a single job's details and status' with enumerated statuses (running | done | rejected | deleted | expired), making the verb and resource explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_jobs and get_transcript by focusing on a single job and its polling lifecycle.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Poll this until status is "done", then fetch the transcript.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and how it fits into the workflow. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, the context is clear enough for correct selection among sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.